Skip to main content

About your Search

20130113
20130121
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
ceiling and he doesn't have the benefit of tax cuts looming? >> i knew it was going to pass. after the republicans walked away from the negotiations and then tried to plan b by speaker republican speaker bane thear failed where republicans wouldn't support their own speaker it became clear even after they tried to amend the senate deal that they could not do so so the deal was going to pass because we were already passed the deadline. but my sense is that this simply creates more mischief. i couldn't understand people voting for it because they wanted to get past the so-called fiscal cliff. i think we have to get to a long-term solution, a deal that actually increases the size of deficits doesn't provide a long-term solution. a deal that actually lets people who have incomes of about $450,000 be lumped in with people who are in the middle of america, i know of know one in the middle of america who think incomes of $450,000 is a middle class. we have to face this. i'm not interested of putting the burden on the middle class. and my fear is that we're going to see this gamesmanship p
, in order to cover costs for things like the bush tax cuts, unpaid wars in iraq and afghanistan -- i agree with the president. the american people should not be held hostage with this game of using the debt ceiling as a way to try to extract what you could not get through the ballot ox. i would urge the president to move forward and continue to have the economy grow, let the government move forward, don't let this be a way that anyone in congress tries to manipulate the process. , you are leaving the options on the table -- >> you are leading the options on the table. you would not be opposed to the 14th amendment, minting the trillion dollar coin, whatever other options someone came up with. >> you cannot negotiate with hostage takers. i think the president must use one of the options before him, whichever is the least offensive. this stinks. this is not the way to run government. no small businessman in america would borrow money to keep the business afloat then say later on to the bank, i'm not going to pay you money. he or she would not get any line of credit in the future. we have to
taxes, state taxes, local taxes. it has to follow the rules or license.ill lose the a lot of gun shop owners i talk to say why should we have to do all this? guys can set up in the parking lot and have a gun show and not have to follow those rules. if you're going to have rules it is going to be for everybody. you cannot say the rules apply to you but not to you. you might want to close the gun show loophole. suddenly, having real background check. that i purchase a weapon, i have to go through a background check the same way you would. that should apply to everybody. they do not have any way to check on that as california has found. a lot people should not have weapons but do because there is that a way to compare records, a felony records and so on. can sayose that so we whatever rules we have will apply the same to everyone. >> i want to ask you some more about guns. one of the things i want to point out is you have another big domestic policy i tim in your camp which is immigration. -- item in your camp which is immigration. you are going to be starting to work on that sometime in
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)